On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:52:31AM -0500, Dan McGee wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Dave Reisner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 11:22:15AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > >> On 08/07/13 09:53, Dave Reisner wrote: > >> > As seen: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1297766 > >> > >> I know it takes some time, but actually explaining what was seen in that > >> thread rather than just linking it will save everyone who looks at this > >> commit some time. > >> > > > > Fair enough... and who knows, maybe the bbs will go away some day ;) > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Dave Reisner <[email protected]> > >> > --- > >> > lib/libalpm/be_sync.c | 7 +++++++ > >> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/lib/libalpm/be_sync.c b/lib/libalpm/be_sync.c > >> > index feda6f5..f3e0a33 100644 > >> > --- a/lib/libalpm/be_sync.c > >> > +++ b/lib/libalpm/be_sync.c > >> > @@ -561,6 +561,13 @@ static int sync_db_read(alpm_db_t *db, struct > >> > archive *archive, > >> > return -1; > >> > } > >> > > >> > + if(filename == NULL) { > >> > + /* A file exists outside of a subdirectory. This isn't a > >> > read error, so return > >> > + * success and try to continue on. */ > >> > + _alpm_log(db->handle, ALPM_LOG_DEBUG, "unknown database > >> > file: %s\n", filename); > >> > >> Only a debug level statement? I think a warning would be appropriate: > >> > >> warning: database "foo" contains unknown file: ... > >> > >> But need to check where that would actually print. > >> > > > > I copied this from the final else branch of the if/else tree in > > sync_db_read() which relegates messages about unknown entries to debug > > level as well. This was strictly for consistency -- if you'd prefer that > > we print both of these as warnings, I can make that change as part of > > this patch. > > I think we made this a debug message to prevent it from being printed > waaaaaay too much- aka once per directory if for some reason we added > a few file to sync databases that older pacman versions didn't know > about.
Aha, good point. > It is probably OK to print the new one at warning level, but I > wouldn't mess with the older message. Makes sense. I'll send a v3 which should be a nice compromise between v1 and v2. d
